Prospective clinical evaluation of 201 direct laser metal forming implants: results from a 1-year multicenter study

Abstract

This prospective clinical study evaluated the survival rate and the implant-crown success of 201 direct laser metal forming (DLMF) implants in different clinical applications, after short-term follow-up of functional loading. At the 1-year scheduled follow-up examination, several clinical, radiographic, and prosthetic parameters were assessed. Success criteria included absence of pain, sensitivity, suppuration, exudation; absence of implant mobility; absence of continuous peri-implant radiolucency, DIB <1.5 mm; absence of prosthetic complications at the implant-abutment interface. A total of 201 implants (106 maxilla, 95 mandible) were inserted in 62 patients (39 males, 23 females; aged between 26 and 65 years) in eight different clinical centers. The sites included anterior (n = 79) and posterior (n = 122) implants. The overall implant survival rate was 99.5%, with one implant loss (maxilla: 99.0%, 1 implant failure; mandible: 100.0%, no implant failures). The mean DIB was 0.4 ± 0.2 mm. Among the survived implants (200), five did not fulfill the success criteria, giving an implant-crown success of 97.5%. This 1-year follow-up prospective clinical study gives evidence of very high survival (99.5%) and success (97.5%) rates using DLMF implants.

Microscopic view of osseointegration and functional mechanisms of implant surfaces

“…Surfaces on TiUnite®, TiXos® and sand-blasted implants are three typical types of implant surfaces that were investigated in this work. The fact that these implants can promote osseointegration at different levels has already been an indisputable fact [14][15][16]26,27]. By using conventional evaluation methods, e.g., histomorphometrical evaluations, removal torque tests, and success and failure criteria, a series of parameters such as BIC, removal torque and implant survival rate can be revealed.…”

“…Although the sample prepared by argon ion beam cross section polishing is not suitable for TEM observation, it fits well for SEM observation to reveal the bone formation mechanisms. Furthermore, the functional mechanism of the surfaces of TiUnite®, TiXos® and sand-blasted implants during osseointegration can be elucidated, which is different from the other clinical evaluation or comparative trial of the implants with turn machined surface [14][15][16].…”

Ki̇şi̇ye Özgü Dental İmplantlar: Derleme

“…Ġmplanta daha iyi kemik desteği sağlanır, alt ve üst çene arasındaki mesafe azaltılır. 14,15 Ancak hastalar tarafından, kemiğin rekonstrükte edildiği cerrahi iĢlemler riskleri ve ekonomik nedenler yüzünden kabul edilmeyebilmektedir. 14,15 Blade tip implantların 3 mm'ye kadar dar kemiklerde ve hem maksiller hem de mandibular kretlerde kullanılma endikasyonu olduğu söylenmiĢtir.…”

“…14,15 Ancak hastalar tarafından, kemiğin rekonstrükte edildiği cerrahi iĢlemler riskleri ve ekonomik nedenler yüzünden kabul edilmeyebilmektedir. 14,15 Blade tip implantların 3 mm'ye kadar dar kemiklerde ve hem maksiller hem de mandibular kretlerde kullanılma endikasyonu olduğu söylenmiĢtir. [16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Blade implantlar ince, düz ve genellikle dikdört-gen Ģekillidir, uzun kenarında ağız içine açılan ve sabit protezi destekleyen bir ya da iki adet çıkıntı vardır.…”

“…[21][22][23][24][25] Bununla birlikte bazı blade implantlar 20-30 yıl baĢarılı Ģekilde ağızda kalmıĢtır [20][21][22] ve bu implantlar ince posterior mandibulada kullanıla-bilmektedir. 21, 22 Mangano F. ve ark 14 tarafından 2013 yılında blade tipte kiĢisel implantların üretilmesi ile ilgili bir prosedür tanıtılmıĢtır. Günümüzde CAD/CAM ve hızlı prototipleme yöntemiyle daha öngörülebilir sonuçları olan daha az invaziv ve geçmiĢteki blade tip implantlara nazaran daha az teknik hassasiyet gerektiren kiĢiye özgü blade tipte implantlar üretilebilmektedir.…”